The DOI matches its Crossref record; 5 of the 5 references it cites were found in a registry or an index; none of the 64 sources its claims cite is checked for support yet.
Embracing Tribal Sovereignty to Eliminate Criminal Jurisdiction Chaos
Open accessAbstract
This Note argues that the current federal laws regarding tribal criminal jurisdiction are contrary to existing policies that recognize inherent tribal sovereignty, and that to fully restore tribal sovereignty and reduce reservation crime rates, Congress should revise the MCA and the TLOA to comprehensively address the legal barriers that adversely affect tribes' ability to prosecute crimes committed within their geographic borders. Part I outlines the historical progression of laws addressing criminal jurisdiction in Indian Country and identifies the problems with the law's disregard and displacement of tribal sovereignty. Part II examines the current state of criminal jurisdiction on reservations-focusing on the lack of tribal input, legal ambiguities, and the under-inclusive nature of the existing laws-and argues that recent shifts in federal policy support broader recognition of inherent tribal sovereignty. Part III explains why the current TLOA, when examined in the context of historical acts of Congress and court decisions, does not go far enough to fix either the barriers imposed on tribal sovereignty or the problems of reservation crime. Part IV proposes revisions to the MCA and the TLOA to promote tribal sovereignty and simplify criminal jurisdiction in Indian Country.
Overview
AI snapshot
Written from the paper’s full text.
TL;DR
This Note argues that federal criminal jurisdiction rules in Indian Country—especially the Major Crimes Act, *Oliphant*, and the Tribal Law and Order Act—undermine inherent tribal sovereignty and fail to address high reservation crime rates. It proposes revising or repealing the MCA and TLOA to restore tribal criminal jurisdiction, including an “Oliphant fix” and removal of tribal sentencing caps.
Key findings
- Reservations experience violent crime at rates 2.5 times the national average; nearly three out of five Indian women are assaulted by spouses or partners, one in three are raped in their lifetime, and Indian women living on or near reservations are ten times more likely to be murder victims than women of any other race. Over 70% of violent crimes against Indian people are committed by non-Indians, and federal prosecutors decline to prosecute an average of half of all reservation crimes subject to federal jurisdiction; elsewhere the Note states U.S. attorneys declined 65% of criminal cases on reservations.
- *Oliphant v. Suquamish Indian Tribe* (1978) held tribes lack criminal jurisdiction over non-Indians absent affirmative congressional delegation; the “Duro Fix” restored tribal authority over all Indians but not non-Indians. The TLOA (2010) relaxed tribal sentencing to up to three years for certain crimes and imposed federal reporting/coordination duties, but it expressly does not confer criminal jurisdiction over non-Indians and lacks an “Oliphant fix.”
- The MCA’s failure to define “Indian” produces inconsistent application of the *Rogers* test and a circuit split: *Maggi* found a man with about 4% Indian blood from a non-recognized tribe not Indian; *Cruz* found a defendant with about 45% blood quantum and no cultural ties not Indian; *Bruce* found a defendant with about 13% Indian blood, born on a reservation with social/cultural ties, Indian; *Stymiest* found a defendant with background similar to *Cruz* Indian.
- Proposed reforms include defining “Indian” as an enrolled member of a federally or state-recognized tribe, allowing tribes to opt out of the MCA and General Crimes Act, removing TLOA/ICRA sentencing caps, adding an Oliphant fix, and adopting reforms as stand-alone statutes rather than ICRA amendments. The Tulalip tribes’ example is cited as showing a 9% drop in criminal case filings during 2010 after greater tribal control.
Methods
- Doctrinal and policy analysis of federal Indian criminal jurisdiction, not an empirical study.
- Sources include historical treaties, statutes (MCA, ICRA, TLOA, Public Law 280, General Crimes Act), Supreme Court decisions (*Crow Dog*, *Kagama*, *Oliphant*, *Antelope*, *Duro*, *Lara*), secondary scholarship, government reports/news, and tribal examples such as the Grand Traverse Band and Tulalip.
- The Note proceeds through a historical survey (Part I), assessment of current federal policy (Part II), critique of TLOA/MCA problems (Part III), and proposed statutory reforms (Part IV).
Limitations
- Stated limitations: Not stated in the paper.
- Evident from the text: it is a legal Note relying on selected cases, statutes, and examples rather than original empirical data, and it does not test the proposed reforms.
- Evident from the text: the Note expressly says state supervision under Public Law 280 presents problems “beyond the scope of this Note,” and it notes that the TLOA’s full impact “is yet to be realized.”
Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
78 Own interpretation · 58 Sources not found · 16 No basis given · 13 Not checked yet
In the paper
“Some of these treaties stipulated how crimes or offenses by non-Indians against Indians, and vice versa, would be prosecuted.”
§ EMBRACING TRIBAL SOVEREIGNTY TO ELIMINATE CRIMINAL JURISDICTION CHAOS > 22.
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [28]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Not matched
In the paper
“By the late nineteenth century, U.S, policy toward Indian tribes became an overt effort to eliminate Indian peoples through assimilation and destruction of tribal sovereignty.”
§ EMBRACING TRIBAL SOVEREIGNTY TO ELIMINATE CRIMINAL JURISDICTION CHAOS > SUMMER 2012] 1043
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [32]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plainstates a cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Not matched
In the paper
“some federal prosecutors' offices are hundreds of miles away from reservations, 1 2 which can inhibit their ability to gather evidence in a timely matter.”
§ EMBRACING TRIBAL SOVEREIGNTY TO ELIMINATE CRIMINAL JURISDICTION CHAOS > INTRODUCTION
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [12]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plainstates a possible cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Not matched
In the paper
“Evidence suggests that these factors result in federal prosecutors declining to prosecute an average of half of all reservation crimes that are subject to federal jurisdiction.”
§ EMBRACING TRIBAL SOVEREIGNTY TO ELIMINATE CRIMINAL JURISDICTION CHAOS > INTRODUCTION
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [13]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
hedgedstates a possible cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Not matched
In the paper
“This treaty required that crimes committed by U.S. citizens against the Delaware people, and vice versa, be prosecuted and tried impartially by judges or juries from both nations.”
§ EMBRACING TRIBAL SOVEREIGNTY TO ELIMINATE CRIMINAL JURISDICTION CHAOS > 22.
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [28]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Not matched
In the paper
“thousands of unmarried Indian women are in relationships or have children with non-Indian men.”
§ EMBRACING TRIBAL SOVEREIGNTY TO ELIMINATE CRIMINAL JURISDICTION CHAOS > INTRODUCTION
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [7]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Not matched
In the paper
“Because the Brule had already resolved the murder case under its own justice system, the Court ordered Crow Dog's release.”
§ EMBRACING TRIBAL SOVEREIGNTY TO ELIMINATE CRIMINAL JURISDICTION CHAOS > Embracing Tribal Sovereignty
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [49]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plainstates a causeSingle case- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Not matched
In the paper
“throughout the early 1800s, this recognition of Indian jurisdiction began to recede, as more treaties shifted from a landbased notion of jurisdiction-under which jurisdiction was based on the location of the crime-to a citizenship-based notion of jurisdiction-under which jurisdiction was based on the status of the perpetrator, the victim, or both.”
§ EMBRACING TRIBAL SOVEREIGNTY TO ELIMINATE CRIMINAL JURISDICTION CHAOS > SUMMER 2012] 1043
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [31]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plainstates a cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“the legal barriers that adversely affect tribes' ability to prosecute crimes committed within their geographic borders.”
§ EMBRACING TRIBAL SOVEREIGNTY TO ELIMINATE CRIMINAL JURISDICTION CHAOS > 14.
plainstates a cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“a number of other statutes and court decisions have limited Indian tribes' ability to independently prosecute crimes committed within their geographic boundaries.”
§ EMBRACING TRIBAL SOVEREIGNTY TO ELIMINATE CRIMINAL JURISDICTION CHAOS > INTRODUCTION
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [18]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plainstates a cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Not matched
- It may state two separate claims as one. 43
- Probably not a substantial claim. 56
- The quote only partly states this claim. 1
In the paper
“Crow Dog appealed his conviction under a writ of habeas corpus, arguing that the Dakota Territory court-a federal court--did not have jurisdiction because the crime occurred on Indian land and the victim was Indian.”
§ EMBRACING TRIBAL SOVEREIGNTY TO ELIMINATE CRIMINAL JURISDICTION CHAOS > Embracing Tribal Sovereignty
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [46]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plainSingle case- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“the Major Crimes Act of 1885 (MCA), which extended federal law for major crimes, such as rape and murder, into Indian reservations and provided for federal jurisdiction over Indian defendants who committed those crimes.”
§ EMBRACING TRIBAL SOVEREIGNTY TO ELIMINATE CRIMINAL JURISDICTION CHAOS > INTRODUCTION
plainstates a cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“none of the proposed legislation fully supports Indian tribal sovereignty.”
§ EMBRACING TRIBAL SOVEREIGNTY TO ELIMINATE CRIMINAL JURISDICTION CHAOS > 14.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim could be matched to a paper in Crossref, so there is nothing to check it against.
In the paper
“These schools were often located far from reservations and had policies intended to assimilate Indian children into Anglo-American culture, such as forcing them to cut their hair and learn English.”
§ EMBRACING TRIBAL SOVEREIGNTY TO ELIMINATE CRIMINAL JURISDICTION CHAOS > SUMMER 2012] 1043
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [34]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not matchedcites [35]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This procedure treated the Delaware as a sovereign nation, creating a cooperative system to deal with crime.”
§ EMBRACING TRIBAL SOVEREIGNTY TO ELIMINATE CRIMINAL JURISDICTION CHAOS > 22.
plainstates a cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“A murder trial in the Dakota Territory District Court followed, and the jury found Crow Dog guilty and sentenced him to death by hanging.”
§ EMBRACING TRIBAL SOVEREIGNTY TO ELIMINATE CRIMINAL JURISDICTION CHAOS > Embracing Tribal Sovereignty
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [45]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plainSingle case- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
In the paper
“This is part of the reason that on-reservation crime rates are extremely high, prosecution rates are low, and tribal sovereignty is impaired.”
§ EMBRACING TRIBAL SOVEREIGNTY TO ELIMINATE CRIMINAL JURISDICTION CHAOS > INTRODUCTION
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [20]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
hedgedstates a cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
None of the sources cited for this claim could be matched to a paper in Crossref, so there is nothing to check it against.
In the paper
“The federal government also forced Indian children to attend boarding schools.”
§ EMBRACING TRIBAL SOVEREIGNTY TO ELIMINATE CRIMINAL JURISDICTION CHAOS > SUMMER 2012] 1043
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [34]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not matchedcites [35]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plainstates a cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Not matched
In the paper
“The Supreme Court agreed and overturned Crow Dog's conviction.”
§ EMBRACING TRIBAL SOVEREIGNTY TO ELIMINATE CRIMINAL JURISDICTION CHAOS > Embracing Tribal Sovereignty
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [47]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plainstates a cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
None of the sources cited for this claim could be matched to a paper in Crossref, so there is nothing to check it against.
In the paper
“A number of scholars, including Professor Robert Clinton, have found that these treaties often recognized the sovereignty of Indian tribes, and therefore the tribes' jurisdiction over crimes committed on their territories.”
§ EMBRACING TRIBAL SOVEREIGNTY TO ELIMINATE CRIMINAL JURISDICTION CHAOS > 22.
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [29]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not matchedcites [30]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plainstates a cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
In the paper
“The federal government has signed treaties with many tribes, recognizing and establishing a government-to-government relationship between the United States and tribes.”
§ EMBRACING TRIBAL SOVEREIGNTY TO ELIMINATE CRIMINAL JURISDICTION CHAOS > INTRODUCTION
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [15]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plainstates a cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Additionally, the Secretary of the Interior must coordinate with tribes to create long-term”
§ EMBRACING TRIBAL SOVEREIGNTY TO ELIMINATE CRIMINAL JURISDICTION CHAOS > General Guide to CriminalJurisdiction in Indian Country, TRIBAL COURT CLEARING-
plainstates a cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The MCA does not adequately define who is an Indian, and Congress has offered little clarification.”
§ EMBRACING TRIBAL SOVEREIGNTY TO ELIMINATE CRIMINAL JURISDICTION CHAOS > 163. CONSTITUTION OF THE GRAND TRAVERSE BAND OF OTTAWA AND CHIPPEWA INDI- ANS, art. X, §I (g).
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“The decision shocked many Americans who simply could not believe that an Indian could get away with murder and that the U.S. government could not do anything about it.”
§ EMBRACING TRIBAL SOVEREIGNTY TO ELIMINATE CRIMINAL JURISDICTION CHAOS > Embracing Tribal Sovereignty
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [50]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“The Attorney General and Secretary of the Interior must submit a report in 2014 that addresses whether enhanced tribal court sentencing authority has improved violent crime rates on reservations, and must make recommendations about whether to discontinue or enhance tribal sentencing authority.”
§ EMBRACING TRIBAL SOVEREIGNTY TO ELIMINATE CRIMINAL JURISDICTION CHAOS > General Guide to CriminalJurisdiction in Indian Country, TRIBAL COURT CLEARING-
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“the Department of Justice awarded $118,395,208 to 147 tribes and tribal organizations for the 2011 fiscal year for improving tribal justice systems and crime prevention programs, with some tribes receiving less than $100,000.”
§ EMBRACING TRIBAL SOVEREIGNTY TO ELIMINATE CRIMINAL JURISDICTION CHAOS > C. Barriers to Implementing the TLOA at the Tibal Level
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: unclear — It is unclear why the paper says it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Furthermore, the continued force of the MCA leads to problems in the federal court system in defining whether a criminal defendant is Indian, which results in a waste ofjudicial resources in appeals over that issue.”
§ EMBRACING TRIBAL SOVEREIGNTY TO ELIMINATE CRIMINAL JURISDICTION CHAOS > PROBLEMS REGARDING TRIBAL JURISDICTION CREATED BY THE CURRENT STATE OF FEDERAL INDIAN POLICY, WHICH DOES NOT FULLY RECOGNIZE TRIBAL SOVEREIGNTY
plainstates a cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Although the MCA has provided the federal government the opportunity to prosecute major reservation crimes for over one hundred years, crime rates on reservations are still astronomically high.”
§ EMBRACING TRIBAL SOVEREIGNTY TO ELIMINATE CRIMINAL JURISDICTION CHAOS > B. The MCA Has Not Solved the Problem of On-Reservation Crime, and the TLOA Does Not Fix the MCA's Weaknesses
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Additionally, drug offenders are not considered violent criminals under the Bureau of Prisons pilot program,”
§ EMBRACING TRIBAL SOVEREIGNTY TO ELIMINATE CRIMINAL JURISDICTION CHAOS > B. The MCA Has Not Solved the Problem of On-Reservation Crime, and the TLOA Does Not Fix the MCA's Weaknesses
plainstates a possible cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: unclear — It is unclear why the paper says it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“It is a non-binding, aspirational document, but one with international consensus represented by over 144 nations voting in favor of its adoption in 2007.”
§ EMBRACING TRIBAL SOVEREIGNTY TO ELIMINATE CRIMINAL JURISDICTION CHAOS > General Guide to CriminalJurisdiction in Indian Country, TRIBAL COURT CLEARING-
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Once the election is approved by the Secretary, at least 30% of GTB eligible voters must vote in the election for it to be valid, and the constitutional amendment can only be adopted if a majority of voters approve the change.”
§ EMBRACING TRIBAL SOVEREIGNTY TO ELIMINATE CRIMINAL JURISDICTION CHAOS > C. Barriers to Implementing the TLOA at the Tibal Level
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Additionally, tribal justice systems already have limited financial resources to hire staff, prosecutors, and public defenders,'”
§ EMBRACING TRIBAL SOVEREIGNTY TO ELIMINATE CRIMINAL JURISDICTION CHAOS > C. Barriers to Implementing the TLOA at the Tibal Level
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
A statement the paper makes itself — it cites no source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“the Court found that federal courts had exclusivejurisdiction over these defendants (and in P.L. 280 states, state governments have exclusive jurisdiction).”
§ EMBRACING TRIBAL SOVEREIGNTY TO ELIMINATE CRIMINAL JURISDICTION CHAOS > 87.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The results of this report could effectively allow the Secretary to strip tribal courts of their authority within four years of the TLOA going into effect.”
§ EMBRACING TRIBAL SOVEREIGNTY TO ELIMINATE CRIMINAL JURISDICTION CHAOS > C. Barriers to Implementing the TLOA at the Tibal Level
hedgedstates a possible cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“As long as federal jurisdiction over on-reservation crimes exists, an essentially local community problem will continue to be regulated by a body of law from outside the community.”
§ EMBRACING TRIBAL SOVEREIGNTY TO ELIMINATE CRIMINAL JURISDICTION CHAOS > A. The TLOA Does Not Restore Tribal Sovereignty over Prosecution of Reservation Crime
plainstates a cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“In November 2009, President Obama held the second-ever Tribal Nations Conference, in which he invited various tribal leaders to Washington D.C. to interact with the federal government on a nation-to-nation basis.”
§ EMBRACING TRIBAL SOVEREIGNTY TO ELIMINATE CRIMINAL JURISDICTION CHAOS > General Guide to CriminalJurisdiction in Indian Country, TRIBAL COURT CLEARING-
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Finally, the TLOA's requirement that the Attorney General and Secretary of the Interior submit a report in 2014 regarding whether improved tribal sentencing authority should continue is completely inconsistent with a pro-tribal sovereignty approach to the federal-tribal relationship.”
§ EMBRACING TRIBAL SOVEREIGNTY TO ELIMINATE CRIMINAL JURISDICTION CHAOS > C. Barriers to Implementing the TLOA at the Tibal Level
plainstates a cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The TLOA also does not provide for a specific liaison between tribes and federal prosecutors to help coordinate administration of justice for on-reservation crime; it remains unclear who will coordinate and how they are expected to undertake this effort.”
§ EMBRACING TRIBAL SOVEREIGNTY TO ELIMINATE CRIMINAL JURISDICTION CHAOS > C. Barriers to Implementing the TLOA at the Tibal Level
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
A statement the paper makes itself — it cites no source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Although it is non-binding, the executive and legislative branches are currently exploring ways to implement its ideals through revisions of domestic policies.”
§ EMBRACING TRIBAL SOVEREIGNTY TO ELIMINATE CRIMINAL JURISDICTION CHAOS > General Guide to CriminalJurisdiction in Indian Country, TRIBAL COURT CLEARING-
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA) defines Indian as”
§ EMBRACING TRIBAL SOVEREIGNTY TO ELIMINATE CRIMINAL JURISDICTION CHAOS > 163. CONSTITUTION OF THE GRAND TRAVERSE BAND OF OTTAWA AND CHIPPEWA INDI- ANS, art. X, §I (g).
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Indian Child Welfare Act
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
A statement the paper makes itself — it cites no source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The TLOA seeks to create more accountability for federal prosecutors, to improve coordination with tribal governments, and to strengthen tribal criminal justice programs, including tribal police and courts.”
§ EMBRACING TRIBAL SOVEREIGNTY TO ELIMINATE CRIMINAL JURISDICTION CHAOS > General Guide to CriminalJurisdiction in Indian Country, TRIBAL COURT CLEARING-
plainstates a cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This process can be costly and lengthy, and several other tribes will need to undergo similar constitutional revisions before they can enact the TLOA's changes.”
§ EMBRACING TRIBAL SOVEREIGNTY TO ELIMINATE CRIMINAL JURISDICTION CHAOS > C. Barriers to Implementing the TLOA at the Tibal Level
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The TLOA's full impact on reservation criminal justice is yet to be realized, but it is already apparent that the TLOA cannot remedy the most serious problems of reservation crime.”
§ EMBRACING TRIBAL SOVEREIGNTY TO ELIMINATE CRIMINAL JURISDICTION CHAOS > PROBLEMS REGARDING TRIBAL JURISDICTION CREATED BY THE CURRENT STATE OF FEDERAL INDIAN POLICY, WHICH DOES NOT FULLY RECOGNIZE TRIBAL SOVEREIGNTY
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“25 U.S.C. § 1301 states:”
§ EMBRACING TRIBAL SOVEREIGNTY TO ELIMINATE CRIMINAL JURISDICTION CHAOS > 163. CONSTITUTION OF THE GRAND TRAVERSE BAND OF OTTAWA AND CHIPPEWA INDI- ANS, art. X, §I (g).
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites 25 U.S.C. § 1301
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Not matched
In the paper
“In United States v. Rogers, 16”
§ EMBRACING TRIBAL SOVEREIGNTY TO ELIMINATE CRIMINAL JURISDICTION CHAOS > 163. CONSTITUTION OF THE GRAND TRAVERSE BAND OF OTTAWA AND CHIPPEWA INDI- ANS, art. X, §I (g).
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites United States v. Rogers
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plainSingle case- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The second part of this test involves examination of a number of factors, and courts throughout the country do not use uniform formulae to determine Indian status under the test's second prong.”
§ EMBRACING TRIBAL SOVEREIGNTY TO ELIMINATE CRIMINAL JURISDICTION CHAOS > 163. CONSTITUTION OF THE GRAND TRAVERSE BAND OF OTTAWA AND CHIPPEWA INDI- ANS, art. X, §I (g).
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: unclear — It is unclear why the paper says it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A statement the paper makes itself — it cites no source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“UNDRIP recognizes that indigenous peoples have rights under international law, including the right to self-determination and free determination of their political status, the right to autonomy or self-government in matters relating to their internal affairs, and the right to participate in decision-making on matters affecting their rights.”
§ EMBRACING TRIBAL SOVEREIGNTY TO ELIMINATE CRIMINAL JURISDICTION CHAOS > General Guide to CriminalJurisdiction in Indian Country, TRIBAL COURT CLEARING-
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The election of President Barack Obama in 2008 began a marked shift in federal policy towards Indian tribes, both in words and in practice.”
§ EMBRACING TRIBAL SOVEREIGNTY TO ELIMINATE CRIMINAL JURISDICTION CHAOS > General Guide to CriminalJurisdiction in Indian Country, TRIBAL COURT CLEARING-
plainstates a cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This is a necessary step towards comprehensively solving problems of on-reservation crime, as will be discussed further in Part IV.”
§ EMBRACING TRIBAL SOVEREIGNTY TO ELIMINATE CRIMINAL JURISDICTION CHAOS > A. The TLOA Does Not Restore Tribal Sovereignty over Prosecution of Reservation Crime
plainstates a cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A statement the paper makes itself — it cites no source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“U.S. Attorneys are also given more resources to deal with reservation crime, including new”
§ EMBRACING TRIBAL SOVEREIGNTY TO ELIMINATE CRIMINAL JURISDICTION CHAOS > General Guide to CriminalJurisdiction in Indian Country, TRIBAL COURT CLEARING-
plainstates a cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A statement the paper makes itself — it cites no source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In July 2010, Congress passed the Tribal Law & Order Act.”
§ EMBRACING TRIBAL SOVEREIGNTY TO ELIMINATE CRIMINAL JURISDICTION CHAOS > General Guide to CriminalJurisdiction in Indian Country, TRIBAL COURT CLEARING-
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Drug crimes are not covered by the MCA, and tribes can still only sentence drug offenders to a '59 maximum of three years per offense, with a cap at nine years.”
§ EMBRACING TRIBAL SOVEREIGNTY TO ELIMINATE CRIMINAL JURISDICTION CHAOS > B. The MCA Has Not Solved the Problem of On-Reservation Crime, and the TLOA Does Not Fix the MCA's Weaknesses
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“interpret ambiguous treaty language, which indicated that the Suquamish were”
§ EMBRACING TRIBAL SOVEREIGNTY TO ELIMINATE CRIMINAL JURISDICTION CHAOS > 87.
hedgedstates a cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The quote only partly states this claim.
In the paper
“A very vocal public reaction resulted from Crow Dog.”
§ EMBRACING TRIBAL SOVEREIGNTY TO ELIMINATE CRIMINAL JURISDICTION CHAOS > Embracing Tribal Sovereignty
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [50]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plainstates a cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Not matched
A statement the paper makes itself — it cites no source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The TLOA also seeks to develop tribal law enforcement agencies by providing more resources to tackle on-reservation crime.”
§ EMBRACING TRIBAL SOVEREIGNTY TO ELIMINATE CRIMINAL JURISDICTION CHAOS > General Guide to CriminalJurisdiction in Indian Country, TRIBAL COURT CLEARING-
plainstates a cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A statement the paper makes itself — it cites no source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“For these reasons, Oliphant continues to face intense criticism as an overreach ofjudicial power.”
§ EMBRACING TRIBAL SOVEREIGNTY TO ELIMINATE CRIMINAL JURISDICTION CHAOS > 96.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The Obama administration endorsed the UNDRIP in December 2010 at the second annual Tribal Nations Conference.”
§ EMBRACING TRIBAL SOVEREIGNTY TO ELIMINATE CRIMINAL JURISDICTION CHAOS > General Guide to CriminalJurisdiction in Indian Country, TRIBAL COURT CLEARING-
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The TLOA granted tribal law enforcement agencies access to the National Criminal Information Center and other national crime databases.”
§ EMBRACING TRIBAL SOVEREIGNTY TO ELIMINATE CRIMINAL JURISDICTION CHAOS > General Guide to CriminalJurisdiction in Indian Country, TRIBAL COURT CLEARING-
plainstates a cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A statement the paper makes itself — it cites no source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The Court stated that”
§ EMBRACING TRIBAL SOVEREIGNTY TO ELIMINATE CRIMINAL JURISDICTION CHAOS > 87.
plainstates a cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Although the TLOA was a noble effort by Congress to fix some of the criminal justice problems occurring on reservations, the TLOA does not go far enough to return criminal prosecutorial authority and sovereignty to tribes.”
§ EMBRACING TRIBAL SOVEREIGNTY TO ELIMINATE CRIMINAL JURISDICTION CHAOS > General Guide to CriminalJurisdiction in Indian Country, TRIBAL COURT CLEARING-
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The TLOA only takes a small step towards restoring full tribal sovereignty over onreservation criminal activities, and tribes face multiple barriers in implementing the TLOA's provisions.”
§ EMBRACING TRIBAL SOVEREIGNTY TO ELIMINATE CRIMINAL JURISDICTION CHAOS > PROBLEMS REGARDING TRIBAL JURISDICTION CREATED BY THE CURRENT STATE OF FEDERAL INDIAN POLICY, WHICH DOES NOT FULLY RECOGNIZE TRIBAL SOVEREIGNTY
plainstates a cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“The court also found that Stymiest received treatment from Indian Health Service, submitted himself to tribal court proceedings, and told others that he was an Indian.”
§ EMBRACING TRIBAL SOVEREIGNTY TO ELIMINATE CRIMINAL JURISDICTION CHAOS > SUMMER 2012] 1061
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Stymiest
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plainSingle case- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“These proposed changes would eliminate the complicated jurisdictional rules illustrated by the table in Part I.”
§ EMBRACING TRIBAL SOVEREIGNTY TO ELIMINATE CRIMINAL JURISDICTION CHAOS > Embracing Tribal Sovereignty
hedgedstates a cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Additionally, the SAVE Act allows non-Indian defendants to petition to remove their case from tribal jurisdiction if their victim is non-Indian, or if the tribe cannot prove that the victim is”
§ EMBRACING TRIBAL SOVEREIGNTY TO ELIMINATE CRIMINAL JURISDICTION CHAOS > See supra
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites SAVE Act
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plainstates a cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“A comprehensive approach can simplify the current statutory system and re-establish an aspect of tribal sovereignty that will help tribes protect their reservation communities from crime.”
§ EMBRACING TRIBAL SOVEREIGNTY TO ELIMINATE CRIMINAL JURISDICTION CHAOS > Additional information
plainstates a cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
A statement the paper makes itself — it cites no source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“These two statuses often overlap because, for enrollment, most tribes require either a minimum percentage of Indian blood or a direct familial link to a known tribal member.”
§ EMBRACING TRIBAL SOVEREIGNTY TO ELIMINATE CRIMINAL JURISDICTION CHAOS > SUMMER 2012] 1061
plainstates an association- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“According to the court, the combination of these factors provided the jury with enough evidence to determine that Stymiest was an Indian.”
§ EMBRACING TRIBAL SOVEREIGNTY TO ELIMINATE CRIMINAL JURISDICTION CHAOS > SUMMER 2012] 1061
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Stymiest
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plainstates a causeSingle case- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“However, making tribal court jurisdiction an opt-in choice for the tribe can help solve this issue, because tribes will presumably not attempt to take over jurisdiction if they do not have the resources to do so.”
§ EMBRACING TRIBAL SOVEREIGNTY TO ELIMINATE CRIMINAL JURISDICTION CHAOS > C. Potential Criticisms of Proposed Reforms
hedgedstates a possible cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
- The authors state this as an assumption: Tribes will not attempt to take over jurisdiction if they do not have the resources to do so.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Inconsistent application of the Rogers test led to confusion within circuit courts and a split among the federal circuit courts.”
§ EMBRACING TRIBAL SOVEREIGNTY TO ELIMINATE CRIMINAL JURISDICTION CHAOS > SUMMER 2012] 1061
plainstates a causen = 3- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“the early 20th century allotment policy created reservations with pockets of land held in fee by non-Indians.”
§ EMBRACING TRIBAL SOVEREIGNTY TO ELIMINATE CRIMINAL JURISDICTION CHAOS > C. Potential Criticisms of Proposed Reforms
plainstates a cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“A person meeting a tribe's blood quantum requirement would be enrolled as a tribal member and gain federally recognized political status as an Indian.”
§ EMBRACING TRIBAL SOVEREIGNTY TO ELIMINATE CRIMINAL JURISDICTION CHAOS > SUMMER 2012] 1061
hedgedstates a cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“These limits on the pilot program make it minimally useful to tribes, and should be lifted.”
§ EMBRACING TRIBAL SOVEREIGNTY TO ELIMINATE CRIMINAL JURISDICTION CHAOS > C. Potential Criticisms of Proposed Reforms
plainstates a cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“A number of court cases have been decided in which defendants challenged their MCA convictions based on their alleged lack of Indian status.”
§ EMBRACING TRIBAL SOVEREIGNTY TO ELIMINATE CRIMINAL JURISDICTION CHAOS > SUMMER 2012] 1061
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A statement the paper makes itself — it cites no source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In the Ninth Circuit, courts are required to consider whether the person is an enrolled member of a recognized tribe, is receiving benefits reserved only for Indians from a tribe or the federal government, is subject to tribal court jurisdiction, and is socially recognized as an Indian.”
§ EMBRACING TRIBAL SOVEREIGNTY TO ELIMINATE CRIMINAL JURISDICTION CHAOS > SUMMER 2012] 1061
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“A variety of federal grants are available to support tribal justice programs”
§ EMBRACING TRIBAL SOVEREIGNTY TO ELIMINATE CRIMINAL JURISDICTION CHAOS > C. Potential Criticisms of Proposed Reforms
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A statement the paper makes itself — it cites no source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“many tribal law and court procedures are clear”
§ EMBRACING TRIBAL SOVEREIGNTY TO ELIMINATE CRIMINAL JURISDICTION CHAOS > C. Potential Criticisms of Proposed Reforms
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Instead, a uniform system would exist that would primarily rely on geographic boundaries, rather than political or racial status.”
§ EMBRACING TRIBAL SOVEREIGNTY TO ELIMINATE CRIMINAL JURISDICTION CHAOS > Embracing Tribal Sovereignty
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A statement the paper makes itself — it cites no source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The first form is a person's political status as an Indian, which results from a person's enrollment in an Indian tribe that is recognized as a sovereign entity by the federal government.”
§ EMBRACING TRIBAL SOVEREIGNTY TO ELIMINATE CRIMINAL JURISDICTION CHAOS > SUMMER 2012] 1061
plainstates a cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
A statement the paper makes itself — it cites no source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The second form is a person's racial status, which is based on the amount of Indian blood a person possesses”
§ EMBRACING TRIBAL SOVEREIGNTY TO ELIMINATE CRIMINAL JURISDICTION CHAOS > SUMMER 2012] 1061
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A statement the paper makes itself — it cites no source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“If a non-Indian man rapes a non-Indian woman on a reservation, however, that man is only subject to state criminal jurisdiction and state sentencing guidelines, as rape is not a federal crime.”
§ EMBRACING TRIBAL SOVEREIGNTY TO ELIMINATE CRIMINAL JURISDICTION CHAOS > SUMMER 2012] 1061
plainstates a cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: unclear — It is unclear why the paper says it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“These definitions are similar but not identical, due to the racial blood component of the IRA definition.”
§ EMBRACING TRIBAL SOVEREIGNTY TO ELIMINATE CRIMINAL JURISDICTION CHAOS > SUMMER 2012] 1061
plainstates a cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
In the paper
“the continued existence of the MCA is a historical blemish that prevents Indian tribes from fully realizing their inherent sovereignty.”
§ EMBRACING TRIBAL SOVEREIGNTY TO ELIMINATE CRIMINAL JURISDICTION CHAOS > A. Revise the MCA
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites MCA
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plainstates a cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Not matched
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Since 2002, the Tulalip have experienced a significant drop in reservation crime rates, including a 9% drop in criminal case filings during 2010, despite an increase in the number of adult enrolled”
§ EMBRACING TRIBAL SOVEREIGNTY TO ELIMINATE CRIMINAL JURISDICTION CHAOS > D. One Tribal Court Success Story
plainstates an association- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: unclear — It is unclear why the paper says it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Indian women and children are especially affected by the lack of tribal jurisdiction over reservation crime, but the high crime rates on reservations affect all who live there.”
§ EMBRACING TRIBAL SOVEREIGNTY TO ELIMINATE CRIMINAL JURISDICTION CHAOS > Additional information
plainstates a cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
- Rests on an assumption: High crime rates on reservations affect all who live there.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“First, the composition of reservation juries may present equal protection problems, because often only tribal members serve on tribal court juries.”
§ EMBRACING TRIBAL SOVEREIGNTY TO ELIMINATE CRIMINAL JURISDICTION CHAOS > C. Potential Criticisms of Proposed Reforms
hedgedstates a possible cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Moreover, these circuit court cases ignore other Supreme Court jurisprudence establishing two separate forms of Indian status.”
§ EMBRACING TRIBAL SOVEREIGNTY TO ELIMINATE CRIMINAL JURISDICTION CHAOS > SUMMER 2012] 1061
plainstates a cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
The paper relies on this without support.
Tribal sovereignty includes the inherent power to prosecute all persons who commit crimes within tribal territory.
“The TLOA also failed to include an”
The paper relies on this without support.
Restoring tribal criminal jurisdiction over non-Indians would reduce on-reservation crime.
“This is a necessary step towards comprehensively solving problems of on-reservation crime, as will be discussed further in Part IV.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Tribal courts are capable of effectively prosecuting and sentencing all crimes committed on reservation territory if given jurisdiction.
“Although the TLOA returns some power to tribal courts in the form of sentencing reform, it does not restore tribal courts' ability to prosecute and effectively sentence all crimes committed on reservation territory.”
The authors state this as an assumption.
Tribes will not attempt to take over jurisdiction if they do not have the resources to do so.
“because tribes will presumably not attempt to take over jurisdiction if they do not have the resources to do so.”
The paper relies on this without support.
High crime rates on reservations affect all who live there.
“but the high crime rates on reservations affect all who live there.”
The paper relies on this without support.
The federal government has self-stated support of inherent Indian tribal sovereignty.
“If the federal government intends to comply with its self-stated support of inherent Indian tribal sovereignty”
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
Each contradiction between two passages listed here was confirmed by an independent check.
Rated major: it would touch a result — a value a result rests on, reported and recomputed p-values on opposite sides of the significance level, two passages that conflict with no sign which is right, or a cited work retracted before this paper was published.
In the paper
§ EMBRACING TRIBAL SOVEREIGNTY TO ELIMINATE CRIMINAL JURISDICTION CHAOS > General Guide to CriminalJurisdiction in Indian Country, TRIBAL COURT CLEARING-
“U.S. Attorneys are also given more resources to deal with reservation crime, including new "Assistant U.S. Attorney Tribal Liaisons"'" who work with U.S. Attorneys”
§ EMBRACING TRIBAL SOVEREIGNTY TO ELIMINATE CRIMINAL JURISDICTION CHAOS > C. Barriers to Implementing the TLOA at the Tibal Level
“The TLOA also does not provide for a specific liaison between tribes and federal prosecutors to help coordinate administration of justice for on-reservation crime; it remains unclear who will coordinate and how they are expected to undertake this effort.”
Rated minor: it would not touch a result — a value no result rests on, a p-value that stays on the same side of the significance level, or a conflict that is clerical, resolved elsewhere in the paper, or outside its own findings.
In the paper
§ EMBRACING TRIBAL SOVEREIGNTY TO ELIMINATE CRIMINAL JURISDICTION CHAOS > Embracing Tribal Sovereignty
“Under the ICRA, a tribal court could only sentence defendants to prison terms of up to six months in length per offense and impose a $500 fine.”
§ EMBRACING TRIBAL SOVEREIGNTY TO ELIMINATE CRIMINAL JURISDICTION CHAOS > C. Barriers to Implementing the TLOA at the Tibal Level
“the Grand Traverse Band of Ottawa and Chippewa Indians (GTB) specifically incorporated the 1968 version of the ICRA's tribal court sentencing limitations of a maximum of one year in jail and/or a $5000 fine into its constitution.”
Citations
Cites
The Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples
Lightfoot, S. (2016) · Routledge eBooks · doi:10.4324/9781315670669-2 · Cited by 120
Injustices: Applying the Sentencing Guidelines and Other Federal Mandates in Indian Country
Kornmann, C. B. (2000) · Federal Sentencing Reporter · doi:10.2307/20640316 · Cited by 4
Reconciling Equal Protection and Federal Indian Law
Berger, B. (2009) · doi:10.15779/z386x3k · Cited by 2
Fletcher, M. L. M. (2009) · Lincoln (University of Nebraska) · Cited by 1
A Crisis in Indian Country: An Analysis of the Tribal Law and Order Act of 2010Preprint
Hart, G. M. (2010) · SSRN Electronic Journal · Cited by 1
Research works printed but not linked: 7
- 121. Lise Balk King, Tribes Look Back to Move Forward: Obama's Monumental Challenge in Indi- an Country, PECHANGA, http://www.victor-rocha.com/articles/Obama's% 2 0monumental% 20challenge%20in%20Indian%20Country%20110409.htm (last visited Feb. 23, 2012). The first tribal conference occurred under President Clinton in 1994. See id. 122. Remarks at the Opening of the American Indian and Alaska Native Tribal Nations Conference and a Discussion with Tribal Leaders, 2009 DAILY COMP. PREs. Doc. 886 (Nov. 5, 2009). 123. Memorandum on Tribal Consultation, 2009 DAILY COMP. PREs. Doc. 887 (Nov. 5, 2009). 124. Indian Arts and Crafts Amendments Act of 2010, Pub. L. No. 111-211, 124 Stat. 2258. 125. See, e.g., The Tribal Law and Order Act of 2009: Hearing on HR. 1924 Before the Sub- comm. of Crime, Terrorism and Homeland Sec. of the H. Comm. on the Judiciary, 111th Cong. 2-3 (2009)
- statement of Thomas J. Perrelli, Assoc. Att'y Gen.); see also id. (statement of Scott Burns Esq., Exec. Dir., National District Attorney Association). 126. See id. (statement of ThomasJ. Perrelli, Assoc. Att'y. Gen.). [VOL. 45:4 155.
- U.S.C.). 160. See 7ribal Law and Order Act Pilot, BUREAU OF PRISONS, http://www.bop.gov/ inmate.programs/docs/tloa.pdf (last visited Feb. 25, 2012). 161. Gideon M. Hart, A Crisis in Indian Country: An Analysis of the Tribal Law and Order Act of 2010,23 Regent U. L. Rev. 139,174 (2010). 162. See supra notes 163-166 and accompanying text. SUMMER 2012] 1059 190. For a detailed analysis of the variety of ways to define Indian status under current law, see Margo S. Brownell, Who is an Indian? Searching for an Answer to the Question at the Core ofFederalIndian Law, 34 U. MICH.J.L. REFORM 275 (2001). 191. See supra notes 174-176. 192.
- MARQ. L. REv. 723, 724-25 (2008). [VOL. 45:4 205.
- Kevin K. Washburn, Tribal Courts and Federal Sentencing, 36 ARIz.. ST. L. J. 403, 429 (2004) (contrasting state and tribal court "right to trial by jury," noting that state courts are only required to give a defendant a jury trial if he is charged with a felony or misdemeanor punishable by imprisonment of at least six months). 211.
- Bethany R. BergerJustice and the Outsider:Jurisdiction over Nonmem- bers in Tribal Legal Systems, 37 Ariz. St. L.J. 1047, 1050-51 (2005). [VOL. 45:4 212. See, e.g., NAv. R. CR. P., available at http://www.navajocourts.org/Rules/ crirninalpro.htm (last visited Nov. 10, 2011);
- Befom the S. Comm. on Indian Affairs, 112th Cong. 1-2 (2011) (statement of Thomas Heffelfinger). [VOL. 45:4
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Bolstad, L. (2014) · Cornerstone (Minnesota State University, Mankato)
Sexual Violence in a Native American Community: Native American Women Speak Out
Olivé, V. (2016) · University of Washington Tacoma Digital Commons (University of Washington Tacoma)
Metadata
- Authors
- Golden, L.
- Affiliations
- University of Michigan (US)
- Corresponding author
- Golden, Lindsey
- Venue
- University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform
- Publisher
- University of Michigan Law Library
- Published
- 2012
- Issue
- 45.4
- Pages
- 1039
- ISSN
- 0363-602X (ISSN-L)
- 2688-4933
- OpenAlex
- W629263214
- Semantic Scholar
- 3b75da89a5e6828db22719071cb5b552cb3a6e46
- Cited by
- 2
- References
- 4
- Citations by year
- 2016: 1 · 2014: 1
- FWCI
- 4.39
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
- doi.org
- Locations
- University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform (publishedVersion)
- bepress Legal Repository (submittedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Law › Indigenous Peoples' Rights and Law
- Social Sciences › Law › Criminal Law and Policy
- Social Sciences › Anthropology › Indigenous Cultures and History
- Keywords
- tribal sovereignty, tribal criminal jurisdiction, Indian Country, Indian reservations, criminal jurisdiction, federal Indian law, tribal self-governance, legal reform
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
A language model drew the claims from the paper on 2026-10-23, under version 3 of the claim definition (model deepseek-v4.1-flash, prompt extract-v3).
A second model labelled each claim on 2026-10-23 (model jev-1.13-20260917, definition revision gold-guideline-v0.2).
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
